Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Please, Jimmy Haslam, fire Shurmur now
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 12, 13, 14, 15  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Cleveland Browns
View previous topic :: View next topic  

Should Haslam fire Shurmur now?
Yes
52%
 52%  [ 24 ]
No
45%
 45%  [ 21 ]
Other, and why?
2%
 2%  [ 1 ]
Total Votes : 46

Author Message
Entropy


Joined: 16 Jul 2012
Posts: 2736
PostPosted: Fri Nov 09, 2012 8:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

big poppa pump wrote:
Entropy wrote:
big poppa pump wrote:


I think you can change that to someone who wins. I would like anyone that could come in and get us to be consistent winners.


Of course it would be ideal if simply hiring the right coach instantly turned a team into winners, however that is not a realistic outcome.

The players play the games, not the coaches. And, typically, the players are more successful with more experience playing together.

For the sake of argument, let's say we get a new coach after this year and have success with largely the same players next year. In that event, it will be very likely that media and many fans will spin that outcome into resulting due to "better coaching". However, both history and logic suggests that, while coaching plays an important part in developing players, it is the actual improvement in the performance of the players during games that have the greatest impact on success.

Coaching certainly plays a significant role in providing the environment for improvement of the field, but not the most significant. Coaches can inspire players to play better, but that doesn't mean they will. The players themselves need to have the talent and the drive to improve before coaching could ever affect improvement. And even if coaching does manage to improve a player, there still remains the fact that each player must execute his role within a scheme that involves the proper execution of other players on each given play.

To simplify: to have a successful passing play you must have adequate pass blocking by several players, a QB that makes an adequate read and throw, and then a receiver that makes a catch.

I don't know of any team in football that coaches their players NOT to block, pass, or catch adequately. SO where does the difference come from? In my opinion it comes mostly from talent and experience, neither of which is coachable.

Right now the media is portraying the Colt's success as a tribute to the effect of inspirational coaching. However, let's not overlook the talent and experience they have on the OLine, DLine, and at the skill positions.

Did the Colt's go from 2-14 to now being 6-3 because of the coaching change? Not likely when you consider that they had less talent at QB which created a more limited playbook than even the current rookie has.

They still don't have much of a run game outside of Luck's 5 rushing TDs.

The truth is that when we really examine the turnaround of a bad team to a good team, it is usually due to the team already having talent and simply gaining more experience than it is to a coaching change. Not to say that coaching isn't important, it certainly is, but how important is it (or was it) for Reggie Wayne, Dwight Freeney and the like?

There is also a pretty significant "luck" component to a good turnaround as well.

The 49ers were 2-5 in 2008 when Nolan was replaced by Singletary. They finished 5-4. Then Singletary went 8-8 with a rookie QB, then he was fired when he went 5-10 in 2010. Now the 9ers fans all love Harbaugh as if he transformed the team himself. I guess they forgot that Alex Smith has been learning this whole time and has some good talent, as does some of those very good young defensive players that were still developing when Singletary was fired.

To summarize my thoughts: I don't think a coaching change will have dramatic impact of the success of the team either for the good or bad. But I also think that Shurmur can be just a good as anyone else we would get, so it may be better than risking a truly bad coach.


I certainly agree that having the talent outweighs what a coaching staff can do. I think it's important to first have an evaluator of talent that can bring the type of players that can win.

You can also say that if a new coach were to come in next year and have success, is it because of the talent that has already been put in place, and is evolving?

I think there are alot of posters on here that believe that it's crazy for some to want to fire this coach and that coach, as well as, find a new QB every year. But when you see the turnaround that takes place each and every year in the NFL, you begin to wonder why we are never a part of that.

This is a win now league. If a coach cannot get it done, get someone else in here that can. Shurmur has not done well. Mccoy did not do well. You can argue that either or both have not gotten a fair shake. Consistency just for the sake of consistency does not make any sense. If things aren't working, then it's time to move forward.


I don't completely disagree with what you are saying, but I have a slightly different opinion.

For one, it seems to be a "win now" league for coaches and not so much for players. We can see the turnover of the head coach or a coaching staff, but not so much with a young QB or even most other young players.

What happens most often is that a team may struggle due to lack of talent, injuries, inexperience, or even just bad luck, and since the head coach is held responsible, he is fired. I feel this is most often done to appease public opinion since the team appears to be doing something to fix a problem.

Now I would certainly agree that there are worse coaches than others, but none of them can do much with a talent deprived team.

The young players, which tend to be the real cause of a lack of success, tend to be granted a greater amount of leeway, and rightfully so, since they hold the key to sustained success.

Now, is it crazy to replace a coach when the team is not performing well? Not necessarily. It depends on if the change is moving the team forward or not. For instance, if we were to bring in a coach that wanted to run a 3-4 defense next year, that would be a step backward that would very likely result in a few more wasted years while we transition the roster.

So is it crazy to have 5 different young QBs starting the majority of the games for the Browns over the past 6 years? Yes, that is freaking insane.

I'm not sure what you mean by "consistency for the sake of consistency". If you mean keeping a bad coach in order to remain a bad team, then no, nobody wants that. If you mean "play a QB for a year or two, and if he doesn't win so many games get another" then be prepared to face more of the consequences that we have already seen.

It appears that you think Shurmur is a bad coach and that the evidence of that is displayed in our W-L record. I disagree. I will challenge you to show me how Shurmur's coaching has directly led us to the 19 losses we have had since he began in Cleveland. You see, if you are right, then a "better" coach would have won significantly more games with the exact same circumstances. Who is this "better coach" that made the 2011-2012 Browns into something more than what they were with Shurmur?

What coach makes Colt McCoy have a better arm, Little drop less passes, Hillis not a weirdo, Massaquoi not injury-prone, Brian Robiskie not a bad draft pick?

What coach takes a team with the sad recent history of the Browns and "fixes" it with supernatural coaching?

We had nothing to speak of as far as NFL talent goes in 2010, with the exception of 2 offensive linemen. Here we are 25 games later and what do you expect? Playoffs? A winning record? How was that going to happen except by either dumb luck or magic?

We are 9 games into the 2012 season and we have had a good chance to win each and every game. Why did we only win 2 so far? Bad coaching? NO. Bad coaching results in a bunch of lopsided losses, like the beginning of 2009 when we lost 34-20, 27-6, 34-3, 27-14, 31-3, 30-6, and 16-0. We did have some talent that year, by the way, not a lot, but more than a team that should lose so badly.

We have lost so many games this year because the team doesn't have enough experience winning and finishing games in the NFL.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bulldog


Moderator
Joined: 18 Nov 2008
Posts: 5777
Location: Salem
PostPosted: Fri Nov 09, 2012 8:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Entropy wrote:
We have lost so many games this year because the team doesn't have enough experience winning and finishing games in the NFL.


I didn't read any other part of the past few posts except this part.

Entropy, you are on a roll my friend.

So many others overlook this fact.
_________________
2013 First Ballot Recipient of the Joe Blackburn Award
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DawgX


Joined: 08 Aug 2006
Posts: 10867
PostPosted: Fri Nov 09, 2012 9:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Entropy wrote:
big poppa pump wrote:
Entropy wrote:
big poppa pump wrote:


I think you can change that to someone who wins. I would like anyone that could come in and get us to be consistent winners.


Of course it would be ideal if simply hiring the right coach instantly turned a team into winners, however that is not a realistic outcome.

The players play the games, not the coaches. And, typically, the players are more successful with more experience playing together.

For the sake of argument, let's say we get a new coach after this year and have success with largely the same players next year. In that event, it will be very likely that media and many fans will spin that outcome into resulting due to "better coaching". However, both history and logic suggests that, while coaching plays an important part in developing players, it is the actual improvement in the performance of the players during games that have the greatest impact on success.

Coaching certainly plays a significant role in providing the environment for improvement of the field, but not the most significant. Coaches can inspire players to play better, but that doesn't mean they will. The players themselves need to have the talent and the drive to improve before coaching could ever affect improvement. And even if coaching does manage to improve a player, there still remains the fact that each player must execute his role within a scheme that involves the proper execution of other players on each given play.

To simplify: to have a successful passing play you must have adequate pass blocking by several players, a QB that makes an adequate read and throw, and then a receiver that makes a catch.

I don't know of any team in football that coaches their players NOT to block, pass, or catch adequately. SO where does the difference come from? In my opinion it comes mostly from talent and experience, neither of which is coachable.

Right now the media is portraying the Colt's success as a tribute to the effect of inspirational coaching. However, let's not overlook the talent and experience they have on the OLine, DLine, and at the skill positions.

Did the Colt's go from 2-14 to now being 6-3 because of the coaching change? Not likely when you consider that they had less talent at QB which created a more limited playbook than even the current rookie has.

They still don't have much of a run game outside of Luck's 5 rushing TDs.

The truth is that when we really examine the turnaround of a bad team to a good team, it is usually due to the team already having talent and simply gaining more experience than it is to a coaching change. Not to say that coaching isn't important, it certainly is, but how important is it (or was it) for Reggie Wayne, Dwight Freeney and the like?

There is also a pretty significant "luck" component to a good turnaround as well.

The 49ers were 2-5 in 2008 when Nolan was replaced by Singletary. They finished 5-4. Then Singletary went 8-8 with a rookie QB, then he was fired when he went 5-10 in 2010. Now the 9ers fans all love Harbaugh as if he transformed the team himself. I guess they forgot that Alex Smith has been learning this whole time and has some good talent, as does some of those very good young defensive players that were still developing when Singletary was fired.

To summarize my thoughts: I don't think a coaching change will have dramatic impact of the success of the team either for the good or bad. But I also think that Shurmur can be just a good as anyone else we would get, so it may be better than risking a truly bad coach.


I certainly agree that having the talent outweighs what a coaching staff can do. I think it's important to first have an evaluator of talent that can bring the type of players that can win.

You can also say that if a new coach were to come in next year and have success, is it because of the talent that has already been put in place, and is evolving?

I think there are alot of posters on here that believe that it's crazy for some to want to fire this coach and that coach, as well as, find a new QB every year. But when you see the turnaround that takes place each and every year in the NFL, you begin to wonder why we are never a part of that.

This is a win now league. If a coach cannot get it done, get someone else in here that can. Shurmur has not done well. Mccoy did not do well. You can argue that either or both have not gotten a fair shake. Consistency just for the sake of consistency does not make any sense. If things aren't working, then it's time to move forward.


I don't completely disagree with what you are saying, but I have a slightly different opinion.

For one, it seems to be a "win now" league for coaches and not so much for players. We can see the turnover of the head coach or a coaching staff, but not so much with a young QB or even most other young players.

What happens most often is that a team may struggle due to lack of talent, injuries, inexperience, or even just bad luck, and since the head coach is held responsible, he is fired. I feel this is most often done to appease public opinion since the team appears to be doing something to fix a problem.

Now I would certainly agree that there are worse coaches than others, but none of them can do much with a talent deprived team.

The young players, which tend to be the real cause of a lack of success, tend to be granted a greater amount of leeway, and rightfully so, since they hold the key to sustained success.

Now, is it crazy to replace a coach when the team is not performing well? Not necessarily. It depends on if the change is moving the team forward or not. For instance, if we were to bring in a coach that wanted to run a 3-4 defense next year, that would be a step backward that would very likely result in a few more wasted years while we transition the roster.

So is it crazy to have 5 different young QBs starting the majority of the games for the Browns over the past 6 years? Yes, that is freaking insane.

I'm not sure what you mean by "consistency for the sake of consistency". If you mean keeping a bad coach in order to remain a bad team, then no, nobody wants that. If you mean "play a QB for a year or two, and if he doesn't win so many games get another" then be prepared to face more of the consequences that we have already seen.

It appears that you think Shurmur is a bad coach and that the evidence of that is displayed in our W-L record. I disagree. I will challenge you to show me how Shurmur's coaching has directly led us to the 19 losses we have had since he began in Cleveland. You see, if you are right, then a "better" coach would have won significantly more games with the exact same circumstances. Who is this "better coach" that made the 2011-2012 Browns into something more than what they were with Shurmur?

What coach makes Colt McCoy have a better arm, Little drop less passes, Hillis not a weirdo, Massaquoi not injury-prone, Brian Robiskie not a bad draft pick?

What coach takes a team with the sad recent history of the Browns and "fixes" it with supernatural coaching?

We had nothing to speak of as far as NFL talent goes in 2010, with the exception of 2 offensive linemen. Here we are 25 games later and what do you expect? Playoffs? A winning record? How was that going to happen except by either dumb luck or magic?

We are 9 games into the 2012 season and we have had a good chance to win each and every game. Why did we only win 2 so far? Bad coaching? NO. Bad coaching results in a bunch of lopsided losses, like the beginning of 2009 when we lost 34-20, 27-6, 34-3, 27-14, 31-3, 30-6, and 16-0. We did have some talent that year, by the way, not a lot, but more than a team that should lose so badly.

We have lost so many games this year because the team doesn't have enough experience winning and finishing games in the NFL.


Great post! This is what I've been saying.

No head coach would have much success with such a young and inexperienced roster. Most of Cleveland's losses this year have to due with lack of execution by the players, and that happens due to having little experience. Once they gain more experience, they'll make less mistakes and start winning more games.

As I've said before, Shurmur may or may not be a good head coach. It's just hard to tell right now due to him coaching such an inexperienced roster. Yet many Browns fans act like Shurmur is solely to blame which is simply ridiculous.
_________________
Cleveland Browns Forum Hall of Fame Inductee
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TeHDruiD


Joined: 01 Jan 2010
Posts: 6842
Location: Canton, OH
PostPosted: Fri Nov 09, 2012 10:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I was just catching up and Entropy just dropped some great logic. While I understand those placing the majority of the blame on the coach (after all, wins and losses typically are put on coaches), but understanding the team and the youth of the team goes a long way in understanding why the team isn't very good

Entropy brought up a good point about the 49ers. They were a bottom feeder for quite awhile but in that time they accumulated a massive amount of talent and when Harbaugh got there, the majority of them had 3+ years of experience. Harbaugh gets the credit, but the reality is he inherited an extremely young and talented team that finally got the experience and progression they were capable of to perform at their best

Long story short: This team is ridiculously young, which isn't a bad thing at all. When Holmgren and Heckert got here there was no hope, we were an old team with very little young talent to work with. Over the past few years we've accumulated more and more talent, they just need the time to develop. This is why I don't fully blame Shurmur for anything, but I do understand the people who are calling for his head as this is the NFL and you either win or you get canned
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bruceb


Joined: 15 Dec 2006
Posts: 6724
Location: Rocky River, OH
PostPosted: Fri Nov 09, 2012 11:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TeHDruiD wrote:
I was just catching up and Entropy just dropped some great logic. While I understand those placing the majority of the blame on the coach (after all, wins and losses typically are put on coaches), but understanding the team and the youth of the team goes a long way in understanding why the team isn't very good

Entropy brought up a good point about the 49ers. They were a bottom feeder for quite awhile but in that time they accumulated a massive amount of talent and when Harbaugh got there, the majority of them had 3+ years of experience. Harbaugh gets the credit, but the reality is he inherited an extremely young and talented team that finally got the experience and progression they were capable of to perform at their best

Long story short: This team is ridiculously young, which isn't a bad thing at all. When Holmgren and Heckert got here there was no hope, we were an old team with very little young talent to work with. Over the past few years we've accumulated more and more talent, they just need the time to develop. This is why I don't fully blame Shurmur for anything, but I do understand the people who are calling for his head as this is the NFL and you either win or you get canned


The rub is that Shurmur has contributed greatly to the team's poor performance, W/L record.

I mean, when your team is 2-7 in your second year and you announce that it's time to correct things like not getting plays in on time (not acknowledging that that is due in large part to your insistence on a process that involves you making the final play calls) which results in taking otherwise unnecessary timeouts, and add your poor clock management at the end of periods and some flat out stupid play calls at pivotal points in games, your head should roll.
_________________
Everything happens exactly the way it is supposed to happen...otherwise, it would happen some other way
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Entropy


Joined: 16 Jul 2012
Posts: 2736
PostPosted: Sat Nov 10, 2012 4:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

bruceb wrote:
TeHDruiD wrote:
I was just catching up and Entropy just dropped some great logic. While I understand those placing the majority of the blame on the coach (after all, wins and losses typically are put on coaches), but understanding the team and the youth of the team goes a long way in understanding why the team isn't very good

Entropy brought up a good point about the 49ers. They were a bottom feeder for quite awhile but in that time they accumulated a massive amount of talent and when Harbaugh got there, the majority of them had 3+ years of experience. Harbaugh gets the credit, but the reality is he inherited an extremely young and talented team that finally got the experience and progression they were capable of to perform at their best

Long story short: This team is ridiculously young, which isn't a bad thing at all. When Holmgren and Heckert got here there was no hope, we were an old team with very little young talent to work with. Over the past few years we've accumulated more and more talent, they just need the time to develop. This is why I don't fully blame Shurmur for anything, but I do understand the people who are calling for his head as this is the NFL and you either win or you get canned


The rub is that Shurmur has contributed greatly to the team's poor performance, W/L record.

I mean, when your team is 2-7 in your second year and you announce that it's time to correct things like not getting plays in on time (not acknowledging that that is due in large part to your insistence on a process that involves you making the final play calls) which results in taking otherwise unnecessary timeouts, and add your poor clock management at the end of periods and some flat out stupid play calls at pivotal points in games, your head should roll.


Can you clear something up for me bro? It seems like you are saying that Shurmur is largely responsible for the 2-7 record because you feel that he called some unnecessary timeouts, you don't like that he can trump the OC on play calls (which is pretty common), you feel like he could have managed the clock at the end of quarters better (I guess with timeouts and play calls that you like more), and you seem to feel like he should have trumped Childress in certain situations with a play call that you would have liked more.

Do I have all that right?

See, if that is the case, then we are talking simply about timeouts and play calling. Can you give us some examples of how any game this season was lost due to these things?

Please understand that I'm not saying he is a great coach or even that he has been great with timeouts and play calling, just that I didn't notice any games being lost due to "clock management" or bad play calling.

I did notice several games that we lost due to bad execution, shaky QB play, defensive mistakes, drive killing penalties, and dropped passes. Did you see any of that?

Did you happen to see that uncontested 2 point conversion in the Ravens game along with 2 INTs and a TD called back due to a dumb penalty? Maybe those things played a pretty big role in that loss.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mistakebytehlak


Joined: 20 Nov 2005
Posts: 44193
Location: Brooklyn, NY
PostPosted: Sat Nov 10, 2012 12:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ive never ever ever ever seen a game that was solely lost because of bad timeout usage
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bruceb


Joined: 15 Dec 2006
Posts: 6724
Location: Rocky River, OH
PostPosted: Sat Nov 10, 2012 3:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Entropy wrote:
bruceb wrote:
TeHDruiD wrote:
I was just catching up and Entropy just dropped some great logic. While I understand those placing the majority of the blame on the coach (after all, wins and losses typically are put on coaches), but understanding the team and the youth of the team goes a long way in understanding why the team isn't very good

Entropy brought up a good point about the 49ers. They were a bottom feeder for quite awhile but in that time they accumulated a massive amount of talent and when Harbaugh got there, the majority of them had 3+ years of experience. Harbaugh gets the credit, but the reality is he inherited an extremely young and talented team that finally got the experience and progression they were capable of to perform at their best

Long story short: This team is ridiculously young, which isn't a bad thing at all. When Holmgren and Heckert got here there was no hope, we were an old team with very little young talent to work with. Over the past few years we've accumulated more and more talent, they just need the time to develop. This is why I don't fully blame Shurmur for anything, but I do understand the people who are calling for his head as this is the NFL and you either win or you get canned


The rub is that Shurmur has contributed greatly to the team's poor performance, W/L record.

I mean, when your team is 2-7 in your second year and you announce that it's time to correct things like not getting plays in on time (not acknowledging that that is due in large part to your insistence on a process that involves you making the final play calls) which results in taking otherwise unnecessary timeouts, and add your poor clock management at the end of periods and some flat out stupid play calls at pivotal points in games, your head should roll.


Can you clear something up for me bro? It seems like you are saying that Shurmur is largely responsible for the 2-7 record because you feel that he called some unnecessary timeouts, you don't like that he can trump the OC on play calls (which is pretty common), you feel like he could have managed the clock at the end of quarters better (I guess with timeouts and play calls that you like more), and you seem to feel like he should have trumped Childress in certain situations with a play call that you would have liked more.

Do I have all that right?

See, if that is the case, then we are talking simply about timeouts and play calling. Can you give us some examples of how any game this season was lost due to these things?

Please understand that I'm not saying he is a great coach or even that he has been great with timeouts and play calling, just that I didn't notice any games being lost due to "clock management" or bad play calling.

I did notice several games that we lost due to bad execution, shaky QB play, defensive mistakes, drive killing penalties, and dropped passes. Did you see any of that?

Did you happen to see that uncontested 2 point conversion in the Ravens game along with 2 INTs and a TD called back due to a dumb penalty? Maybe those things played a pretty big role in that loss.


It's a difference in perspective: You are looking for cause and effect between specific kinds of repeated errors (symptoms) and Ws & Ls; I am looking at the widespread and repeated symptoms and asking: What is/are the root cause(s)?

Say what you will about Mangini, but his teams were disciplined. Shurmur's is not.

And I feel that there is strong connection between the lack of discipline and lack of execution Shurmur constantly cites as the biggest problem this team faces.

Weeden stopped short of throwing Shurmur under the bus re the cluster play-calling process in his post-game last week, but said it leaves little time to call the play and get to the line of scrimmage. This no doubt creates unnecessary stress in executing the plays, and it shows...it almost certainly contributes to why the O often doesn't look like it knows what it's doing.

And this kind of dysfunction manifests itself in most aspects of the team's performance. That's probably as much on the coaches as it is on the players, imo, and it starts with the HC.
_________________
Everything happens exactly the way it is supposed to happen...otherwise, it would happen some other way
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Entropy


Joined: 16 Jul 2012
Posts: 2736
PostPosted: Sat Nov 10, 2012 4:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bruceb wrote:
Entropy wrote:
bruceb wrote:
TeHDruiD wrote:
I was just catching up and Entropy just dropped some great logic. While I understand those placing the majority of the blame on the coach (after all, wins and losses typically are put on coaches), but understanding the team and the youth of the team goes a long way in understanding why the team isn't very good

Entropy brought up a good point about the 49ers. They were a bottom feeder for quite awhile but in that time they accumulated a massive amount of talent and when Harbaugh got there, the majority of them had 3+ years of experience. Harbaugh gets the credit, but the reality is he inherited an extremely young and talented team that finally got the experience and progression they were capable of to perform at their best

Long story short: This team is ridiculously young, which isn't a bad thing at all. When Holmgren and Heckert got here there was no hope, we were an old team with very little young talent to work with. Over the past few years we've accumulated more and more talent, they just need the time to develop. This is why I don't fully blame Shurmur for anything, but I do understand the people who are calling for his head as this is the NFL and you either win or you get canned


The rub is that Shurmur has contributed greatly to the team's poor performance, W/L record.

I mean, when your team is 2-7 in your second year and you announce that it's time to correct things like not getting plays in on time (not acknowledging that that is due in large part to your insistence on a process that involves you making the final play calls) which results in taking otherwise unnecessary timeouts, and add your poor clock management at the end of periods and some flat out stupid play calls at pivotal points in games, your head should roll.


Can you clear something up for me bro? It seems like you are saying that Shurmur is largely responsible for the 2-7 record because you feel that he called some unnecessary timeouts, you don't like that he can trump the OC on play calls (which is pretty common), you feel like he could have managed the clock at the end of quarters better (I guess with timeouts and play calls that you like more), and you seem to feel like he should have trumped Childress in certain situations with a play call that you would have liked more.

Do I have all that right?

See, if that is the case, then we are talking simply about timeouts and play calling. Can you give us some examples of how any game this season was lost due to these things?

Please understand that I'm not saying he is a great coach or even that he has been great with timeouts and play calling, just that I didn't notice any games being lost due to "clock management" or bad play calling.

I did notice several games that we lost due to bad execution, shaky QB play, defensive mistakes, drive killing penalties, and dropped passes. Did you see any of that?

Did you happen to see that uncontested 2 point conversion in the Ravens game along with 2 INTs and a TD called back due to a dumb penalty? Maybe those things played a pretty big role in that loss.


It's a difference in perspective: You are looking for cause and effect between specific kinds of repeated errors (symptoms) and Ws & Ls; I am looking at the widespread and repeated symptoms and asking: What is/are the root cause(s)?

Say what you will about Mangini, but his teams were disciplined. Shurmur's is not.

And I feel that there is strong connection between the lack of discipline and lack of execution Shurmur constantly cites as the biggest problem this team faces.

Weeden stopped short of throwing Shurmur under the bus re the cluster play-calling process in his post-game last week, but said it leaves little time to call the play and get to the line of scrimmage. This no doubt creates unnecessary stress in executing the plays, and it shows...it almost certainly contributes to why the O often doesn't look like it knows what it's doing.

And this kind of dysfunction manifests itself in most aspects of the team's performance. That's probably as much on the coaches as it is on the players, imo, and it starts with the HC.


In 2009, Mangini had a full team of starters that averaged over 4 years of experience playing in the NFL.

You compliment him for the discipline he "coached" into players like: Robert Royal (drafted in 2002), Jamal Lewis (2000), Eric Steinbach (2003), John St.Clair (2000), Floyd Womack (2001), Kenyon Coleman (2002), Shaun Rogers (2001), Robaire Smith (2000), David Bowens (1999), Eric Barton (1999), Abe Elam (2006), and Brodney Pool (2005).

Sure seems like if they weren't already disciplined they wouldn't have lasted very long in the NFL, especially since most of these guys were not huge on talent.

It's pretty safe to say that Mangini's teams were lacking talent, not experience.

This year, the Browns offensive starters at the beginning of season (Weeden-0, Richardson-0, Marecic-1, Thomas-5, Pinkston-1, Mack-3, Lauvao-2, Schwartz-0, Watson-8, Gordon-0, Little-1) average under 2 years of NFL experience. With Greco playing for Pinkston, it still is barely 2 years.

On defense: (Winn-0, Hughes-0, Rubin-4, Sheard-1, Rucker-6, JMJ-0, Robertson-0, Fort-0, DQ-6, Maiava-3, Brown-10, Haden-2, Ward-2, Young-5, Hagg-0, Skrine-1, Patterson-6) they average about 2.7 years of experience in the NFL.

So you credit Mangini for his experienced but talent-deprived roster and you condemn Shurmur for his talented but inexperienced roster. Surely you can see that, though the ability to win (or lose) games maybe be similar at first, the latter situation is far better for the success of the team going forward.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
big poppa pump


Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Posts: 1648
PostPosted: Sat Nov 10, 2012 4:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

To add to your post Bruce, I would say that how a team begins each game is indicative of how prepared they are. If a team comes out flat, I think that the coaches should take much of the blame. The Browns came out and laid an egg in the first quarter, and were down 14 0 in a hurry.

The play-calling has been completely suspect. You may argue again that it is mostly execution. I see poorly conceived plays. When Mccoy was in last year, he was the check-down king. How many times were we left screaming at the tv when a 5 yard out was completed on 3rd and 10. Enter Brandon Weeden. There are 5 trips to the red-zone and not 1 pass that was thrown to the end zone. Is this solely the QB's fault? The coach has to shoulder some of this blame.

I would love to see the stat of how many 3rd and 1 plays were incomplete, drive-killing pass plays. Not having a supremely talented team and being young are certainly part of the reason the team has not been successful. The coach has not done his job either.
_________________

BIG UPS TO REG....DA MAN
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mistakebytehlak


Joined: 20 Nov 2005
Posts: 44193
Location: Brooklyn, NY
PostPosted: Sat Nov 10, 2012 5:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bruceb wrote:
Entropy wrote:
bruceb wrote:
TeHDruiD wrote:
I was just catching up and Entropy just dropped some great logic. While I understand those placing the majority of the blame on the coach (after all, wins and losses typically are put on coaches), but understanding the team and the youth of the team goes a long way in understanding why the team isn't very good

Entropy brought up a good point about the 49ers. They were a bottom feeder for quite awhile but in that time they accumulated a massive amount of talent and when Harbaugh got there, the majority of them had 3+ years of experience. Harbaugh gets the credit, but the reality is he inherited an extremely young and talented team that finally got the experience and progression they were capable of to perform at their best

Long story short: This team is ridiculously young, which isn't a bad thing at all. When Holmgren and Heckert got here there was no hope, we were an old team with very little young talent to work with. Over the past few years we've accumulated more and more talent, they just need the time to develop. This is why I don't fully blame Shurmur for anything, but I do understand the people who are calling for his head as this is the NFL and you either win or you get canned


The rub is that Shurmur has contributed greatly to the team's poor performance, W/L record.

I mean, when your team is 2-7 in your second year and you announce that it's time to correct things like not getting plays in on time (not acknowledging that that is due in large part to your insistence on a process that involves you making the final play calls) which results in taking otherwise unnecessary timeouts, and add your poor clock management at the end of periods and some flat out stupid play calls at pivotal points in games, your head should roll.


Can you clear something up for me bro? It seems like you are saying that Shurmur is largely responsible for the 2-7 record because you feel that he called some unnecessary timeouts, you don't like that he can trump the OC on play calls (which is pretty common), you feel like he could have managed the clock at the end of quarters better (I guess with timeouts and play calls that you like more), and you seem to feel like he should have trumped Childress in certain situations with a play call that you would have liked more.

Do I have all that right?

See, if that is the case, then we are talking simply about timeouts and play calling. Can you give us some examples of how any game this season was lost due to these things?

Please understand that I'm not saying he is a great coach or even that he has been great with timeouts and play calling, just that I didn't notice any games being lost due to "clock management" or bad play calling.

I did notice several games that we lost due to bad execution, shaky QB play, defensive mistakes, drive killing penalties, and dropped passes. Did you see any of that?

Did you happen to see that uncontested 2 point conversion in the Ravens game along with 2 INTs and a TD called back due to a dumb penalty? Maybe those things played a pretty big role in that loss.


It's a difference in perspective: You are looking for cause and effect between specific kinds of repeated errors (symptoms) and Ws & Ls; I am looking at the widespread and repeated symptoms and asking: What is/are the root cause(s)?

Say what you will about Mangini, but his teams were disciplined. Shurmur's is not.

And I feel that there is strong connection between the lack of discipline and lack of execution Shurmur constantly cites as the biggest problem this team faces.

Weeden stopped short of throwing Shurmur under the bus re the cluster play-calling process in his post-game last week, but said it leaves little time to call the play and get to the line of scrimmage. This no doubt creates unnecessary stress in executing the plays, and it shows...it almost certainly contributes to why the O often doesn't look like it knows what it's doing.

And this kind of dysfunction manifests itself in most aspects of the team's performance. That's probably as much on the coaches as it is on the players, imo, and it starts with the HC.


We had 0 penalties in the first half last week. At home, we have 4.4 penalties per game, 3rd best in the league. Away, we have 9.0, tied with WASH for last.

Ever think that its because the kids are YOUNG AND INEXPERIENCED
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Entropy


Joined: 16 Jul 2012
Posts: 2736
PostPosted: Sat Nov 10, 2012 6:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

big poppa pump wrote:
To add to your post Bruce, I would say that how a team begins each game is indicative of how prepared they are. If a team comes out flat, I think that the coaches should take much of the blame. The Browns came out and laid an egg in the first quarter, and were down 14 0 in a hurry.

The play-calling has been completely suspect. You may argue again that it is mostly execution. I see poorly conceived plays. When Mccoy was in last year, he was the check-down king. How many times were we left screaming at the tv when a 5 yard out was completed on 3rd and 10. Enter Brandon Weeden. There are 5 trips to the red-zone and not 1 pass that was thrown to the end zone. Is this solely the QB's fault? The coach has to shoulder some of this blame.

I would love to see the stat of how many 3rd and 1 plays were incomplete, drive-killing pass plays. Not having a supremely talented team and being young are certainly part of the reason the team has not been successful. The coach has not done his job either.


To ridicule your post, along with bruce's (just kidding guys), I would say that that it is rather common to have slow starting games in today's NFL and that when the opposing offense fails to score early, by your own words, it is a reflection of the head coach's ability to prepare the defense.

Also:

-Weeden chooses himself where to throw the passes, not the head coach

- Early scoring is usually due to defensive mistakes (or offensive turnovers) and NOT due to super-fantastic play calling. NFL teams tend to use the first few possessions to feel-out their opponent's game plan

-Play calls are best made if they incorporate strengths of the players, e.g. if a player has not shown a consistent ability to beat one on one coverage, it would not be wise to force the ball to him by calling plays where the opposing defense plays him man to man

-If the QB had not shown a consistent ability to make a back shoulder throw AND this may be due in part to the inexperience of both the route runner and the QB, it's not wise to call that play in a crucial situation, especially since it resulted in a few INTs recently

-If the QB and WRs have shown a good ability to hit on slants and curls, probably a good idea to incorporate that into the game plan and use that as your "go-to" play in crucial situations

-If the QB is given a few chances every game to complete a deep pass, but has been missing on overthrows recently, you might want to limit that play against cover 2, or when you are playing against someone like Ed Reed

-If on 3rd and 1, your RB has failed to get the yard 4 out of 6 chances, is that really a play calling issue? We have had about 14 3rd and 1 chances this season. We converted only 6 of them. 4 of them were by Weeden with 2 scrambles and 2 passes. Weeden also had a pick on 3rd and 1 against the Giants. By the way, TRich failed his first 3rd and 1 try (Eagles), then Weeden converted the next 2 tries (1st Bengals game), then TRich failed his 2nd (our 4th 3rd and 1 chance) try (Buff). Blame whoever you want for Richardson not being able to make a yard those first 2 times, but don't blame the play call.

Now, I have been pretty specific. If you want to continue criticizing play calls, please do the same. Making blanket statements without showing evidence is reflective of a weak opinion.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
big poppa pump


Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Posts: 1648
PostPosted: Sat Nov 10, 2012 7:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Entropy wrote:
big poppa pump wrote:
To add to your post Bruce, I would say that how a team begins each game is indicative of how prepared they are. If a team comes out flat, I think that the coaches should take much of the blame. The Browns came out and laid an egg in the first quarter, and were down 14 0 in a hurry.

The play-calling has been completely suspect. You may argue again that it is mostly execution. I see poorly conceived plays. When Mccoy was in last year, he was the check-down king. How many times were we left screaming at the tv when a 5 yard out was completed on 3rd and 10. Enter Brandon Weeden. There are 5 trips to the red-zone and not 1 pass that was thrown to the end zone. Is this solely the QB's fault? The coach has to shoulder some of this blame.

I would love to see the stat of how many 3rd and 1 plays were incomplete, drive-killing pass plays. Not having a supremely talented team and being young are certainly part of the reason the team has not been successful. The coach has not done his job either.


To ridicule your post, along with bruce's (just kidding guys), I would say that that it is rather common to have slow starting games in today's NFL and that when the opposing offense fails to score early, by your own words, it is a reflection of the head coach's ability to prepare the defense.

Also:

-Weeden chooses himself where to throw the passes, not the head coach
When Weeden, Mccoy, or whomever is the QB is consistently throwing underneath passes that aren't gaining 1st downs on 3rd down plays, the Wr's are either never open, they don't trust themselves to make a good throw, or the coach hasn't called a play that was good enough to get them a 1st down. It's not the QB's fault every time.


- Early scoring is usually due to defensive mistakes (or offensive turnovers) and NOT due to super-fantastic play calling. NFL teams tend to use the first few possessions to feel-out their opponent's game plan

Talk about a blanket statement. Show me facts that prove that early scoring is due to defensive mistakes. That is absolutely ridiculous. Teams that don't do well early are poorly coached.

-Play calls are best made if they incorporate strengths of the players, e.g. if a player has not shown a consistent ability to beat one on one coverage, it would not be wise to force the ball to him by calling plays where the opposing defense plays him man to man

If that's the case then why didn't Mccoy and now Weeden play the majority of their snaps out of the shotgun? This is what they did in college. I would argue that this coaching staff does just the opposite. Rather than play to the strengths of the team, they shove the west coast offense down their throats. The west coast offense that they use appears outdated and archaic.

-If the QB had not shown a consistent ability to make a back shoulder throw AND this may be due in part to the inexperience of both the route runner and the QB, it's not wise to call that play in a crucial situation, especially since it resulted in a few INTs recently

How about not abandoning the run when you drafted someone third overall that is supposed to be the cornerstone of your offense?

-If the QB and WRs have shown a good ability to hit on slants and curls, probably a good idea to incorporate that into the game plan and use that as your "go-to" play in crucial situations

So the slants work. Yippdeefreakin do. Do you think that opposing teams may try to take that away from you in crucial situations? You need more than just slants and curls to have a successful passing offense

-If the QB is given a few chances every game to complete a deep pass, but has been missing on overthrows recently, you might want to limit that play against cover 2, or when you are playing against someone like Ed Reed

So don't throw deep at all? Don't try to get in the endzone and settle for 5 fg's? mmmmmm......no

-If on 3rd and 1, your RB has failed to get the yard 4 out of 6 chances, is that really a play calling issue? We have had about 14 3rd and 1 chances this season. We converted only 6 of them. 4 of them were by Weeden with 2 scrambles and 2 passes. Weeden also had a pick on 3rd and 1 against the Giants. By the way, TRich failed his first 3rd and 1 try (Eagles), then Weeden converted the next 2 tries (1st Bengals game), then TRich failed his 2nd (our 4th 3rd and 1 chance) try (Buff). Blame whoever you want for Richardson not being able to make a yard those first 2 times, but don't blame the play call.

How about running behind a competent FB? Not the coaches fault that Marecic blows, but we do have Smelley on the practice squad. Instead they use Alex Smith who plays TE. BTW...You want examples of bonehead decisions. How about when they handed off to Smith last year and Shurmur says he didn't realize he was in the game.

Now, I have been pretty specific. If you want to continue criticizing play calls, please do the same. Making blanket statements without showing evidence is reflective of a weak opinion.


The 4th and 1 in Indy that we decided to punt.

Last year not being ready against Cincy and they run a play that ends up being an AJ Green game winning TD.

His decision to leave Colt in the game against Pitt when he just got his head ripped off by Harrison,

Leaving Weeden in the game the 1st game of the year when we clearly had a chance to win with anyone else in the game.

You can throw out all the stats you want and they still will not refute what a bonehead Shurmur is. If you want me to fish through every game over the last 2 years, I'm sure I will find countless mistakes that he has made, some of which cost us games for sure. I would rather cut ties now, but if it happens at the end of the year, so be it.
_________________

BIG UPS TO REG....DA MAN
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bruceb


Joined: 15 Dec 2006
Posts: 6724
Location: Rocky River, OH
PostPosted: Sat Nov 10, 2012 7:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The only stats I am concerned with are 2-13 in his team's last 15 games, and 1-8 vs. division teams during that stretch, often looking perplexed and seemingly making questionable decisions/calls throughout the process.

I think the team does not know how to win because Shurmur does not know how to win.
_________________
Everything happens exactly the way it is supposed to happen...otherwise, it would happen some other way
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Entropy


Joined: 16 Jul 2012
Posts: 2736
PostPosted: Sat Nov 10, 2012 7:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bruceb wrote:
The only stats I am concerned with are 2-13 in his team's last 15 games, and 1-8 vs. division teams during that stretch, often looking perplexed and seemingly making questionable decisions/calls throughout the process.

I think the team does not know how to win because Shurmur does not know how to win.


It's ok if you want to be closed-minded and only be concerned with things that propogate your own weak opinion, just don't expect any intelligent discussion to come from it.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Cleveland Browns All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 12, 13, 14, 15  Next
Page 13 of 15

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group